The chairman of the Australian Press Council says the media is still allowed to discuss racial identification issues, and even challenge the genuineness of the identification of a group of people, but only if it is done responsibly and with due care and attention to facts.

Julian Disney made the comments after the Federal Court ruled News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt and his employer, the Herald Sun newspaper, had breached the Racial Discrimination Act when it published two articles challenging people's identification as Aboriginal.

Bolt says it is a "terrible day for free speech".

The plaintiffs in the case welcomed the ruling and said Aboriginal people could once again walk tall thanks to the judgment.

Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg said that in the absence of the publication of an apology, he would make an order for the publication of a corrective notice.

In the final paragraph of his ruling, Justice Bromberg said maintaining free speech was crucial.

"It is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people," he said.

"I have not found Mr Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times to have contravened the act simply because the newspaper articles dealt with subject matter of that kind.

"I have found the contravention of the Racial Discrimination Act because of the manner in which that subject matter was dealt with."

Mr Disney says the ruling has two fundamental messages.

"It's fundamental, I think, to note that last point, that he's saying this area is not a no-go area, the sort of issues that Andrew Bolt referred to; it's only that in the judge's view he didn't do it in a way that complies with the Racial Discrimination Act," he said.

"And I think there would be a very clear and worrying risk for free speech, and I think also to eventual social cohesion, if this issue or this case was seen as establishing a no-go area."

Principles

During the trial it came out that Bolt did not contact any of the nine people before the articles were published.

He did not speak to any of them, nor did he try to. He relied a lot on Google for his information, and much of what was in the search engine was found to be wrong.

Mr Disney says fundamental principles of the press still apply to the online medium.

"Without tying it particularly to this particular case, certainly it's a matter of concern to the Press Council, and we've expressed this view on other matters in recent weeks, that there can be a view in some circles that columns or blogs online or comment streams to websites are somehow exempt from the normal principles of accuracy and fairness and balance," he said.

This is a terrible day for free speech in this country. It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves.

Andrew Bolt

Bolt's two articles named 18 well-known Aboriginal Australians and questioned their motivations for claiming Aboriginal ancestry.

Justice Bromberg concluded the messages conveyed by the two articles included that the people were not genuinely Aboriginal; that instead, motivated by career opportunities available to Aboriginal people, they had chosen to falsely identify as Aboriginal.

Messages

Justice Bromberg said the messages included that fair skin colour indicates a person who is not sufficiently Aboriginal to be genuinely identified as an Aboriginal person.

"I am satisfied that fair-skinned Aboriginal people were reasonable likely in all the circumstances to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles," he said.

"The imputations which I have found were conveyed by the newspaper articles were plainly calculated to convey a message about the race, ethnicity or colour of fair-skinned Aboriginal people, including whether those people are sufficiently of Aboriginal race, colour or ethnicity to be identified as Aboriginal.

"I am satisfied that Mr Bolt both understood and intended that imputations of that kind were conveyed by the newspaper articles he wrote."

The defence maintained that race and colour had nothing to do with Bolt writing the articles or the Herald Sun publishing them.

They said their conduct should be exempted from the Racial Discrimination Act because the articles dealt with a matter of public interest.

"I have not been satisfied that the offensive conduct that I have found occurred is exempted from unlawfulness by section 18D," he said.

"The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of truth and inflammatory and provocative language."

'Terrible day'

Bolt needed a few minutes to collect his thoughts after the court's ruling.

Speaking outside the court, he said: "This is a terrible day for free speech in this country.

"It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves."

On his blog, he thanked his supporters for their sympathy.

The publishers of the Herald and Weekly Times issued a statement saying they were considering whether to appeal the decision.

"The Herald and Weekly Times is disappointed with today's Federal Court decision," the statement said.

"We maintain that the articles were published as part of an important discussion on a matter of public interest.

"We defended the action because we believe that all Australians ought to have the right to express their opinions freely, even where their opinions are controversial or unpopular."

Thrilled

Pat Eatock, the lead plaintiff in the case, was the founding secretary of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra.

In one article, Bolt says she looks as white as her Scottish mother or some of her father's British relatives, and that she only started to identify as Aboriginal when she was 19 after attending a political rally.

It was never about free speech. It's always been a question of professionalism. The reality is that the original articles were not professional journalism.

Lead plaintiff Pat Eatock

Ms Eatock is thrilled with today's decision.

"It is the result that we expected. It was never about free speech. It's always been a question of professionalism," she said.

"The reality is that the original articles were not professional journalism."

Prominent Yorta Yorta men Wayne Atkinson and his brother Graham were targeted by Bolt in one article in which he said they were Aboriginal because their Indian great-grandfather had married a part Aboriginal woman.

"I think it's a win-win for many people today, but particularly for Indigenous Australians, particularly for those of us who've been brought up to be so proud of our identity, and we've been taught to walk tall and be proud of that identity, wherever we go in the world," Wayne Atkinson said.

"We have reached a milestone here today. I stand before you; what you see is what you get. I identify as an Aboriginal person. I have all my life. I don't have to prove that I'm an Aboriginal person to anybody."

Free trade is the oldest argument in federal politics and the issue that literally defined the federation era but opposition exists to the TPP, courtesy of the Investor-State Dispute Resolutions clause.